HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal (Jail) Appeal No. 401/2013 Shankar Singh S/o Nathu Singh ----Appellant Versus State Of Rajasthan Through P P ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Harshad Kapoor on behalf of Mr.
Rajesh Kapoor For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Rekha Madnani,Public Prosecutor HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA
Judgment
02/04/2019
1. Present appellant is stepfather of victim aged 10 years (name of victim has been withheld to protect her identity). Case of the prosecution as set out in the charges is that the appellant kidnapped her stepdaughter on 08.05.2012 and thus committed offence punishable under Section 364 IPC. It is the further case of the prosecution that the appellant had performed unnatural offence with the victim and thereafter committed her murder. Thus the appellant was charged for the offences under Sections 364, 365, 377 and 302 IPC.
2. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Ajmer vide impugned judgment dated 05.02.2013 convicted the appellant for offences under Sections 302, 364 and 365 IPC. The appellant was acquitted of offence under Section 377 IPC by extending benefit of doubt. Having convicted the appellant vide impugned judgment dated 05.02.2013 the trial Judge on the same day by an order of even date sentenced the appellant as under:-
| S.No. For | offence under Section | Sentenced to |
| 1. | 302 IPC | Life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months simple imprisonment. |
| 2. | 364 IPC | Life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months simple imprisonment. |
| 3. | 365 IPC | Seven years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month’s simple imprisonment. |
3. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
4. Aggrieved against his conviction and sentence the appellant filed the present appeal through jail.
5. Mr. Rajesh Kapoor was appointed as Counsel by the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority to defend the appellant. Today Mr. Harshad Kapoor on behalf of Shri Rajesh Kapoor, Counsel for the appellant has ably assisted us and has taken us through the evidence and has made a valiant effort to secure acquittal of the appellant.
6. Having perused the record and hearing the Counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor, we are not inclined to accept the present appeal. Before we state our reasons it will be necessary to recapitulate brief facts of the case.
7. In the present case criminal proceedings were set into motion by wife of the appellant, namely Smt. Chooka Devi (PW- 1). On 09.05.2012 at about 9.30 AM she presented a written report (Exhibit P1) before the SHO, Police Station Alwar Gate, Ajmer. In the written report she stated that she was earlier married with one Jaisingh Rawat. From her earlier marriage she was having a daughter i.e. victim, aged 10 years. 7-8 years before the date of presentation of written report her matrimonial relationship with her earlier husband had turned sour. She left her earlier husband and performed marriage with the present appellant. From the loins of present appellant Smt. Chooka Devi (PW-1) gave birth to a son, namely Vishnu, aged 3 years and a daughter namely Payal, aged 1-1/2 years. She further stated that her husband used to go for labour work and she used to remain at the house for taking care of children. Her husband, the present appellant, was addicted to liquor and alcohol. She further stated that her daughter from the previous marriage was staying with her and this fact was not acceptable to the present appellant and therefore he used to have altercation with the complainant. The complainant stated that on the day of occurrence she left the house to do the labour work. When she returned and asked from the children about the eldest daughter she was informed that she had gone to market to by a toffee. In the evening she enquired from the appellant about the whereabouts of her eldest daughter. The appellant failed to give any satisfactory reply. The neighbours on the next day i.e. 09.05.2012 informed her that on 08.05.2012 the accused at about 2.30 PM had taken her eldest daughter (victim) on a motorcycle. On the basis of last seen